NationStates

Kowani wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:I tried to be nice and rational, that didn’t work, let me say it like this.
If we never gave gays rights, pedophiles would most likely not even think about having pedophilia legalised, because the main reason that pedophiles say that pedophilia should be legalised, is because they consider themselves to be apart of the LGBTQ+ community.

except, they were doing it before gay people got rights

Sundiata wrote:

Hjallvinter wrote:
Catholics imposing their moral standards on others isn't morally justifiable, but imposing your expected behavioral standards on Catholics is morally justifiable. Sure thing.

I am Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my values on gay people. That's all.

literally none of your 3 articles addressed pedophilia
they were about puberty blockers, the colorado cake baker, and guidance about how to cope with being doxxed
did you not read your own sources

Miku the Based wrote:Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.
At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence. It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour. Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation. I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases.
Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation. Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

Miku the Based wrote:Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.
At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence.

It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour.

Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation.

I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases

Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation.

Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

Palmyrion wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I am Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my values on gay people. That's all.

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

Hjallvinter wrote:

literally none of your 3 articles addressed pedophilia
they were about puberty blockers, the colorado cake baker, and guidance about how to cope with being doxxed
did you not read your own sources

No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

Miku the Based wrote: practice in immortal behaviour.

Necroghastia wrote:

Hjallvinter wrote:
No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

those articles didn't really address any point tbh
you point, if there was one, was utterly incoherent

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Palmyrion wrote:Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

Palmyrion wrote:

Miku the Based wrote:Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.
At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence. It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour. Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation. I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases.
Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation. Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

"muh hoimosexuality is harmful to reproduction"

"hurting the families' prospect at genetic continuation"

Agreed. Kin selection by gay uncles doesn't exist.

"rely on a influx of converts"

no thanks, this isn't even an argument

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Palmyrion wrote:Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

Sundiata wrote:

Turelisa- wrote:
The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Palmyrion wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I am Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my values on gay people. That's all.

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Kowani wrote:I tried to be nice and rational, that didn’t work, let me say it like this.
If we never gave gays rights, pedophiles would most likely not even think about having pedophilia legalised, because the main reason that pedophiles say that pedophilia should be legalised, is because they consider themselves to be apart of the LGBTQ+ community.
your whole point is easily dismantled

I’m aware, it was legal then, but not now.
And I’m not talking about the past.
You haven’t been listening, have you?

Hjallvinter wrote:

literally none of your 3 articles addressed pedophilia
they were about puberty blockers, the colorado cake baker, and guidance about how to cope with being doxxed
did you not read your own sources

No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

Palmyrion wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:When did he say that?

Sundiata wrote:Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Disgraces wrote:

Palmyrion wrote:Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

How the Hell did you understand that from what they said?

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Palmyrion wrote:Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

Sundiata wrote:

Turelisa- wrote:
The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Hjallvinter wrote:What is the Replication Crisis?

Kowani wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:I’m aware, it was legal then, but not now.
And I’m not talking about the past.
You haven’t been listening, have you?

...no it wasn't lmao
NAMBLA was advocating for the legalization of pedophilia in a time when gay rights didn't exist yet
this is fucking incoherent

Hjallvinter wrote:
No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

you know
i'm getting really fucking tired of motte-and-bailey arguments
literally nobody claimed LGBT+ advocacy existed in a vacuum, by the way
that you failed to understand my point is your fault

Palmyrion wrote:

Disgraces wrote:How the Hell did you understand that from what they said?

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:When did he say that?

Sundiata wrote:Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Sundiata said this in a separate thread. What he doesn't know, is that anything he says anywhere at anytime, can be used against him, anywhere at anytime.

Kowani wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:I’m aware, it was legal then, but not now.
And I’m not talking about the past.
You haven’t been listening, have you?

...no it wasn't lmao
NAMBLA was advocating for the legalization of pedophilia in a time when gay rights didn't exist yet
this is fucking incoherent

Hjallvinter wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:those articles didn't really address any point tbh
you point, if there was one, was utterly incoherent

Dunning Kruger incarnate.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:When did he say that?

He didn't. It's a strawman.

Palmyrion wrote:"muh hoimosexuality is harmful to reproduction"

"hurting the families' prospect at genetic continuation"

Agreed. Kin selection by gay uncles doesn't exist.

"rely on a influx of converts"

no thanks, this isn't even an argument

What is the Replication Crisis?

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Palmyrion wrote:Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

Sundiata wrote:

Turelisa- wrote:
The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Miku the Based wrote:Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.

At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence. It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour. Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation. I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases.

Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation. Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

Nilokeras wrote:

Hjallvinter wrote:What is the Replication Crisis?

This just in: Charles Darwin part of the replication crisis in psychology for some reason